'
1. Before me is the Summons for Revocation of Grant (SRG) dated 14/2/2025 .
2. The application is brought by Josephine Wavinya Kithome and Janet Ndungwa Kithome under Section 76 of the Law Succession Act - that the grant made with respect to the Estate of the late Joseph Kithome Kisilu who died on 7/10/2016 be revoked.
3. The grounds for the Summons for Revocation of Grant are set on the face of the summons viz: QUOTE 1 – 1, 2,3,4,5
1) The proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance
2) The grant was obtained fraudulently by making false statements and/or concealment from the court of some material to the case.
3) The grant was obtained by means of untrue allegations of facts essential in prints of law to justify the grant notwithstanding the allegations were made in ignorance or inadvertently.
4) That one of the persons (Mary Munyao Kithome) to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate.
5) The grant has become useless and/or inoperative through subsequent circumstances
4. The summons is opposed vide the replying affidavit of Mary Munyao Kithome the administrator on the grounds inter alia that the application is:
i. Bad in law and incompetent.
ii. Unmeritorious.
iii. An appeal behind the backdoor of the court judgment delivered on 29/4/2020.
iv. An attempt to delay the administration of the estate herein.
v. Falsehood and misleading
5. The respondent further depones that it is the applicants who have frustrated the implementation of the judgment of the court by purporting to have filed an appeal, purporting to have stay of execution, all of which were later found not to exist.
6. Further that the grant was issued to the respondent and the applicants jointly and the applicants cannot be heard to say that she has failed to implement the grant.
7. Parties filed written submissions- for the applicants dated 2/4/2025 and for the respondent - dated 14/4/2025.
8. I have considered the submissions, the affidavits and the record.
9. The record shows that the applicants and the respondent are the joint administrators of the Estate. On 29/4/2020 the Hon. H.I Ong’udi J delivered the judgment that distributed the Estate of the deceased.
10. Thereafter there were some applications for stay of execution to give room to whoever wished to appeal against the judgement to do so, stay orders were accordingly granted – the stay lapsed sometimes in 2020.
11. Thereafter, the grant has not been executed because of various challenges- and the applicants place the full blame on the respondent.
12. Reading through the submissions of the applicants it emerges that they are dissatisfied with the manner in which the estate was distributed and they seek that the grant be revoked and the matter be placed before another judge other than Ong’udi J and C. Kariuki J my predecessors in this matter.
13. From the onset I must state that is not a prayer that is available under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act.
14. Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act provides for when a grant may be revoked it states:
76. Revocation or annulment of grant
a) A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion—
b) That the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance;
c) That the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case;
d) that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;
e) That the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either-
i. To apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or
ii. To proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or
iii. To produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or
iv. That the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances.
15. These were generally summarized in Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (DCD) [2020]eKLR-
16. The only issue for determination is whether the Summon for Revocation of Grant as filed by the applicants has met the threshold required by the law.
17. From the record before me the respondents are co-administrators of the estate up to the point where the estate was distributed and the judgement delivered on 29/4/2020. They participated in the full trial of the matter and were there when the court granted the final orders and a certificate of confirmation of grant issued. Having so participated in the obtaining of the grant, in the confirmation proceedings how can they come under s. 76 of the LOSA? - They are saying that proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; That the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case; and that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law. Having been part of the whole thing how can they escape these accusations? They would have to demonstrate that only the respondent did these things but there is no distinction after the fact. I have seen their consent to have the grant revoked. They are jointly responsible for how the grant was obtained and unless they demonstrate otherwise their application on these grounds cannot have merit. If they were dissatisfied with the decision of the court, their recourse as administrators was to appeal that decision.
18. On the accusations against the person to whom the grant was made :- again the grant was made to the applicants together with the respondent. Any failure in acting on that grant cannot be lumped on the respondent, and once again they cannot remove themselves from the grant after the fact unless they point out the wrongs specific to the respondent ad what they did to bring that to the attention of the court.
19. The fact that their dissatisfaction with the grant is not about s. 76 but is demonstrated by the following issues which they cite for this court to determine: They submit that the court should consider the following;
The applicant saw her efforts being defeated through the clan and 2nd respondent then used the office of the assistant chief (administration) to stop the deceased and the clan in order to retain her position as a widow. She claims to have withdrawn the divorce proceedings as she later learned the consequences on property. She is purely materialistic and her target had always been the properties that belonged to the deceased and his first wife especially plot 55. By fraud, she waited until death and even wanted to bury the deceased alone, claiming that he died in her arms when in fact they had been separated for 7 months and he passed away in hospital.
There is need for measurement and then valuation in order to ensure equality in the balance/remainder. Each house ought to first get what was acquired for and/or on behalf of the house then common property be shared equally. The applicant cannot isolate the 2nd respondent as she stands for the 1st house the same way the applicant alone is for the 2nd house. If both are not concerned on the estate the property will revert to the public trustee so none should seem to ignore the other, the need to have the grant revoked is inevitable in order to preserve the estate for the beneficiaries in respect of the separate households. The applicant by demolishing the perimeter wall gave away about 30 x 200 feet of land on the front line at Makindu lower market with a value of about Ksh.1 million at present market price. The 2nd respondent is important to the estate and is the 1st plaintiff/applicant in the case against KeNHA.
There are issues which clearly emerge from the evidence on record which no tribunal can ignore:
a) The evidence as to which house has a right to what is clear. The applicant wants what belongs to the 1st house without evidence of her right to the same. There is no evidence to her claim of anything in plots no. 55 and 606.
b) Being the surviving spouse cannot be looked at in isolation of what had taken place before the demise of the main bread winner. The applicant was working but used her monies to purchase her assets and for her children''s education. Nothing is seen from her income. There ought to be evidence such as a statement from the bank(s) to show purchase and/or a payment. When you lift the veil, it may be that her salary was used to purchase assets in the name of her children and may have been a place to hide income from the school. Where is the money going now since the demise of the deceased? She did not account to court at the hearing?
c) The applicant kept the family in the dark as to debts. These were found by the court to lack evidence. Land exchange(s) were also found wanting. The applicant has records for the deceased and may be knowing of assets which she has not disclosed. She keeps others in the dark while her children do not attend court and do not know what actually belongs to who through ignorance. There is no justification to trust the applicant. Evidence on record in these proceedings flows from assumption. Real evidence lacks.
d) There is inequality which emerges from the onset. The applicant has property from a previous marriage. She entered into the first wife''s assets before marriage (in December 1986). Then she uses her marriage as a ticket to amass from the deceased (see Kivuitu vs Kivuitu). She lied on debt, alleged the deceased was of unsound mind, wanted to take over the matrimonial home of the first wife and alleged she paid Ksh.110, 400 debt. She cannot be relied on to account for the estate.
e) The court fails to look into what was done in the name of the deceased. That is to know and/or acknowledge what was in the mind of the deceased. It is only after ascertaining what was in his mind that the court may do it in his name. To represent his authority. Hence the law is used absolutely but not at whim. The applicant does not wish to acknowledge the authority of the deceased, the clan and the law. Therefore, by having a wrong spirit of the law, we may drag law into our own error and do things which are not of law. This is what the applicant is trying to lead the court to as facts and/or their implication. Judgement flows from evidence which is grounded on facts. When judgement misrepresents evidence, the authority of law ceases. The court ought to ask who the applicant is and know her antecedents. The evidence provides these if looked carefully. The liar hates the victim. She hated the deceased and now the 1st house which exposes the reasons why the grant ought to be revoked.
f) Acquisition arises on who owns the land on which each asset stands. It is important to first confirm if the alleged asset as per the judgement exist. Value the asset, the acreage, development if any, proximity to the market place, its current market value per acre or if any value or whole properties. The judgement cannot be implemented as the applicant who is using Makindu Sunrise Academy is not the owner of the soil/plot on which the school has been constructed. The plot belongs to the first house. She entered upon the sickness of the deceased and now alleges to have property in it. There is evidence that the deceased purchased with first wife the land on which the school stands. The letter of allotment and sole proprietorship certificate are in the name of the deceased. The applicant cannot account for the proceeds and will never want the question being posed. She went on to give away 1 million worth of land in demolishing the perimeter wall as she has nothing to lose having put no effort in its acquisition.
g) Apparent discrimination and contradiction on the part of the applicant needs no mention from the evidence. She even defies the court. She kept the deceased''s documents /allotment/certificate of school registration while there is no evidence of utilization of her salary /loans, benefits. There is no evidence that she was a director of Makindu Sunrise Academy and if so, does not disclose her allowance/salary nor where it went to (and if there were directors, who were the other directors, also sole proprietors do not have a board of directors). She does not declare the income in law. Her keeping and production of records is wanting being selective to suit her .
20. These are just a few of the issues the applicants have placed before this court for determination in the application for revocation. As one can see, there is an attack on the judgment of the Hon Ong’udi J. The applicants are of the view that the Judgment did not flow from the evidence. These parties were heard through viva voce evidence – each produced their evidence - which the judge heard and made a determination.
21. That is not an issue for determination under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act – but on appeal.
22. The respondent is not in agreement with the applicants that the grant ought to be revoked and is ready to proceed to execute the grant.
23. The court issued a certificate of confirmation of grant on 11/5/2020 to Mary Kithome, Robert Musembi Kithome, Josephine Wavinya Kithome, Janet Ndungwa Kithome. Four years down the line the grant has not been executed .
24. The respondent accuses the applicants of frustrating all the efforts to implement the grant. However, she has never moved the court all these years. Neither has her co administrator Robert Musembi Kithome
25. Going by Section 83(g) of the Law of Succession Act the applicants and the respondent ought to have administered this estate by the end of 2020. It states:
Within six months from the date of confirmation of the grant, or such longer period as the court may allow, to complete the administration of the estate in respect of all matters other than continuing trusts, and to produce to the court a full and accurate account of the completed administration.
26. It is quite clear that these four have failed to execute their duty four years down the line leaving the estate up for wastage before distribution to the beneficiaries. It is also very clear that these four cannot and will not implement the grant because of their differences. Court orders are not made in vain.
27. There appears to be no other available person within the family who can administer the estate.
28. Section 66 of the LOSA provides as follows:
Preference to be given to certain persons to administer where deceased died intestate :
When a deceased has died intestate, the court shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, have a final discretion as to the person or persons to whom a grant of letters of administration shall, in the best interests of all concerned, be made, but shall, without prejudice to that discretion, accept as a general guide the following order of preference
(a) surviving spouse or spouses, with or without association of other beneficiaries;
(b) other beneficiaries entitled on intestacy, with priority according to their respective beneficial interests as provided by Part V;
(c) the Public Trustee; and
(d) creditors:
29. The surviving spouse and other beneficiaries were given the opportunity to administer the estate and have all failed to do so.
30. It is not in the best interests of the estate or the beneficiaries for this situation to prevail. These parties have demonstrated their inability to act.
31. In the circumstances the court has no choice but to take the action that pears next best in the in the best interests of everyone.
32. The grant made and confirmed to Mary Kithome, Robert Musembi Kithome, Josephine Wavinya Kithome, Janet Ndungwa Kithome be and is hereby revoked on the ground that it has become useless and the failure of the parties to execute the same.
33. A fresh grant is issued to the Public Trustee to take effect immediately for the Public Trustee to ensure the implementation of the grant.
34. In the meantime, each party is directed to maintain the status quo subsisting as at the date of this order. Each party is directed to cooperate with the Public Trustee.
35. The Deputy Registrar to serve this order together with the certificate of Confirmation of grant on the Public Trustee within 7 days hereof.
36. A return of service be filed accordingly .
37. The Public Trustee to appear before the Deputy Registrar to confirm receipt of the Orders.
38. The Public Trustee to take over the matter and to proceed to administer the Estate as per the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant herein within 6 months of service of the order and to file the requisite report.
39. The Matter be mentioned before the Deputy Registrar in 7 days hereof for compliance with this court’s directions.
40. Orders accordingly
Dated, signed and delivered via CTS on 14th November 2025
Mumbua T. Matheka
Judge
Court Assistant - Chrispol
'
1. Before me is the Summons for Revocation of Grant (SRG) dated 14/2/2025 .
2. The application is brought by Josephine Wavinya Kithome and Janet Ndungwa Kithome under Section 76 of the Law Succession Act - that the grant made with respect to the Estate of the late Joseph Kithome Kisilu who died on 7/10/2016 be revoked.
3. The grounds for the Summons for Revocation of Grant are set on the face of the summons viz: QUOTE 1 – 1, 2,3,4,5
1) The proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance
2) The grant was obtained fraudulently by making false statements and/or concealment from the court of some material to the case.
3) The grant was obtained by means of untrue allegations of facts essential in prints of law to justify the grant notwithstanding the allegations were made in ignorance or inadvertently.
4) That one of the persons (Mary Munyao Kithome) to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause to proceed diligently with the administration of the estate.
5) The grant has become useless and/or inoperative through subsequent circumstances
4. The summons is opposed vide the replying affidavit of Mary Munyao Kithome the administrator on the grounds inter alia that the application is:
i. Bad in law and incompetent.
ii. Unmeritorious.
iii. An appeal behind the backdoor of the court judgment delivered on 29/4/2020.
iv. An attempt to delay the administration of the estate herein.
v. Falsehood and misleading
5. The respondent further depones that it is the applicants who have frustrated the implementation of the judgment of the court by purporting to have filed an appeal, purporting to have stay of execution, all of which were later found not to exist.
6. Further that the grant was issued to the respondent and the applicants jointly and the applicants cannot be heard to say that she has failed to implement the grant.
7. Parties filed written submissions- for the applicants dated 2/4/2025 and for the respondent - dated 14/4/2025.
8. I have considered the submissions, the affidavits and the record.
9. The record shows that the applicants and the respondent are the joint administrators of the Estate. On 29/4/2020 the Hon. H.I Ong’udi J delivered the judgment that distributed the Estate of the deceased.
10. Thereafter there were some applications for stay of execution to give room to whoever wished to appeal against the judgement to do so, stay orders were accordingly granted – the stay lapsed sometimes in 2020.
11. Thereafter, the grant has not been executed because of various challenges- and the applicants place the full blame on the respondent.
12. Reading through the submissions of the applicants it emerges that they are dissatisfied with the manner in which the estate was distributed and they seek that the grant be revoked and the matter be placed before another judge other than Ong’udi J and C. Kariuki J my predecessors in this matter.
13. From the onset I must state that is not a prayer that is available under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act.
14. Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act provides for when a grant may be revoked it states:
76. Revocation or annulment of grant
a) A grant of representation, whether or not confirmed, may at any time be revoked or annulled if the court decides, either on application by any interested party or of its own motion—
b) That the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance;
c) That the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case;
d) that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant notwithstanding that the allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently;
e) That the person to whom the grant was made has failed, after due notice and without reasonable cause either-
i. To apply for confirmation of the grant within one year from the date thereof, or such longer period as the court order or allow; or
ii. To proceed diligently with the administration of the estate; or
iii. To produce to the court, within the time prescribed, any such inventory or account of administration as is required by the provisions of paragraphs (e) and (g) of section 83 or has produced any such inventory or account which is false in any material particular; or
iv. That the grant has become useless and inoperative through subsequent circumstances.
15. These were generally summarized in Prisca Ong’ayo Nande (DCD) [2020]eKLR-
16. The only issue for determination is whether the Summon for Revocation of Grant as filed by the applicants has met the threshold required by the law.
17. From the record before me the respondents are co-administrators of the estate up to the point where the estate was distributed and the judgement delivered on 29/4/2020. They participated in the full trial of the matter and were there when the court granted the final orders and a certificate of confirmation of grant issued. Having so participated in the obtaining of the grant, in the confirmation proceedings how can they come under s. 76 of the LOSA? - They are saying that proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; That the grant was obtained fraudulently by the making of a false statement or by the concealment from the court of something material to the case; and that the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law. Having been part of the whole thing how can they escape these accusations? They would have to demonstrate that only the respondent did these things but there is no distinction after the fact. I have seen their consent to have the grant revoked. They are jointly responsible for how the grant was obtained and unless they demonstrate otherwise their application on these grounds cannot have merit. If they were dissatisfied with the decision of the court, their recourse as administrators was to appeal that decision.
18. On the accusations against the person to whom the grant was made :- again the grant was made to the applicants together with the respondent. Any failure in acting on that grant cannot be lumped on the respondent, and once again they cannot remove themselves from the grant after the fact unless they point out the wrongs specific to the respondent ad what they did to bring that to the attention of the court.
19. The fact that their dissatisfaction with the grant is not about s. 76 but is demonstrated by the following issues which they cite for this court to determine: They submit that the court should consider the following;
The applicant saw her efforts being defeated through the clan and 2nd respondent then used the office of the assistant chief (administration) to stop the deceased and the clan in order to retain her position as a widow. She claims to have withdrawn the divorce proceedings as she later learned the consequences on property. She is purely materialistic and her target had always been the properties that belonged to the deceased and his first wife especially plot 55. By fraud, she waited until death and even wanted to bury the deceased alone, claiming that he died in her arms when in fact they had been separated for 7 months and he passed away in hospital.
There is need for measurement and then valuation in order to ensure equality in the balance/remainder. Each house ought to first get what was acquired for and/or on behalf of the house then common property be shared equally. The applicant cannot isolate the 2nd respondent as she stands for the 1st house the same way the applicant alone is for the 2nd house. If both are not concerned on the estate the property will revert to the public trustee so none should seem to ignore the other, the need to have the grant revoked is inevitable in order to preserve the estate for the beneficiaries in respect of the separate households. The applicant by demolishing the perimeter wall gave away about 30 x 200 feet of land on the front line at Makindu lower market with a value of about Ksh.1 million at present market price. The 2nd respondent is important to the estate and is the 1st plaintiff/applicant in the case against KeNHA.
There are issues which clearly emerge from the evidence on record which no tribunal can ignore:
a) The evidence as to which house has a right to what is clear. The applicant wants what belongs to the 1st house without evidence of her right to the same. There is no evidence to her claim of anything in plots no. 55 and 606.
b) Being the surviving spouse cannot be looked at in isolation of what had taken place before the demise of the main bread winner. The applicant was working but used her monies to purchase her assets and for her children''s education. Nothing is seen from her income. There ought to be evidence such as a statement from the bank(s) to show purchase and/or a payment. When you lift the veil, it may be that her salary was used to purchase assets in the name of her children and may have been a place to hide income from the school. Where is the money going now since the demise of the deceased? She did not account to court at the hearing?
c) The applicant kept the family in the dark as to debts. These were found by the court to lack evidence. Land exchange(s) were also found wanting. The applicant has records for the deceased and may be knowing of assets which she has not disclosed. She keeps others in the dark while her children do not attend court and do not know what actually belongs to who through ignorance. There is no justification to trust the applicant. Evidence on record in these proceedings flows from assumption. Real evidence lacks.
d) There is inequality which emerges from the onset. The applicant has property from a previous marriage. She entered into the first wife''s assets before marriage (in December 1986). Then she uses her marriage as a ticket to amass from the deceased (see Kivuitu vs Kivuitu). She lied on debt, alleged the deceased was of unsound mind, wanted to take over the matrimonial home of the first wife and alleged she paid Ksh.110, 400 debt. She cannot be relied on to account for the estate.
e) The court fails to look into what was done in the name of the deceased. That is to know and/or acknowledge what was in the mind of the deceased. It is only after ascertaining what was in his mind that the court may do it in his name. To represent his authority. Hence the law is used absolutely but not at whim. The applicant does not wish to acknowledge the authority of the deceased, the clan and the law. Therefore, by having a wrong spirit of the law, we may drag law into our own error and do things which are not of law. This is what the applicant is trying to lead the court to as facts and/or their implication. Judgement flows from evidence which is grounded on facts. When judgement misrepresents evidence, the authority of law ceases. The court ought to ask who the applicant is and know her antecedents. The evidence provides these if looked carefully. The liar hates the victim. She hated the deceased and now the 1st house which exposes the reasons why the grant ought to be revoked.
f) Acquisition arises on who owns the land on which each asset stands. It is important to first confirm if the alleged asset as per the judgement exist. Value the asset, the acreage, development if any, proximity to the market place, its current market value per acre or if any value or whole properties. The judgement cannot be implemented as the applicant who is using Makindu Sunrise Academy is not the owner of the soil/plot on which the school has been constructed. The plot belongs to the first house. She entered upon the sickness of the deceased and now alleges to have property in it. There is evidence that the deceased purchased with first wife the land on which the school stands. The letter of allotment and sole proprietorship certificate are in the name of the deceased. The applicant cannot account for the proceeds and will never want the question being posed. She went on to give away 1 million worth of land in demolishing the perimeter wall as she has nothing to lose having put no effort in its acquisition.
g) Apparent discrimination and contradiction on the part of the applicant needs no mention from the evidence. She even defies the court. She kept the deceased''s documents /allotment/certificate of school registration while there is no evidence of utilization of her salary /loans, benefits. There is no evidence that she was a director of Makindu Sunrise Academy and if so, does not disclose her allowance/salary nor where it went to (and if there were directors, who were the other directors, also sole proprietors do not have a board of directors). She does not declare the income in law. Her keeping and production of records is wanting being selective to suit her .
20. These are just a few of the issues the applicants have placed before this court for determination in the application for revocation. As one can see, there is an attack on the judgment of the Hon Ong’udi J. The applicants are of the view that the Judgment did not flow from the evidence. These parties were heard through viva voce evidence – each produced their evidence - which the judge heard and made a determination.
21. That is not an issue for determination under Section 76 of the Law of Succession Act – but on appeal.
22. The respondent is not in agreement with the applicants that the grant ought to be revoked and is ready to proceed to execute the grant.
23. The court issued a certificate of confirmation of grant on 11/5/2020 to Mary Kithome, Robert Musembi Kithome, Josephine Wavinya Kithome, Janet Ndungwa Kithome. Four years down the line the grant has not been executed .
24. The respondent accuses the applicants of frustrating all the efforts to implement the grant. However, she has never moved the court all these years. Neither has her co administrator Robert Musembi Kithome
25. Going by Section 83(g) of the Law of Succession Act the applicants and the respondent ought to have administered this estate by the end of 2020. It states:
Within six months from the date of confirmation of the grant, or such longer period as the court may allow, to complete the administration of the estate in respect of all matters other than continuing trusts, and to produce to the court a full and accurate account of the completed administration.
26. It is quite clear that these four have failed to execute their duty four years down the line leaving the estate up for wastage before distribution to the beneficiaries. It is also very clear that these four cannot and will not implement the grant because of their differences. Court orders are not made in vain.
27. There appears to be no other available person within the family who can administer the estate.
28. Section 66 of the LOSA provides as follows:
Preference to be given to certain persons to administer where deceased died intestate :
When a deceased has died intestate, the court shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, have a final discretion as to the person or persons to whom a grant of letters of administration shall, in the best interests of all concerned, be made, but shall, without prejudice to that discretion, accept as a general guide the following order of preference
(a) surviving spouse or spouses, with or without association of other beneficiaries;
(b) other beneficiaries entitled on intestacy, with priority according to their respective beneficial interests as provided by Part V;
(c) the Public Trustee; and
(d) creditors:
29. The surviving spouse and other beneficiaries were given the opportunity to administer the estate and have all failed to do so.
30. It is not in the best interests of the estate or the beneficiaries for this situation to prevail. These parties have demonstrated their inability to act.
31. In the circumstances the court has no choice but to take the action that pears next best in the in the best interests of everyone.
32. The grant made and confirmed to Mary Kithome, Robert Musembi Kithome, Josephine Wavinya Kithome, Janet Ndungwa Kithome be and is hereby revoked on the ground that it has become useless and the failure of the parties to execute the same.
33. A fresh grant is issued to the Public Trustee to take effect immediately for the Public Trustee to ensure the implementation of the grant.
34. In the meantime, each party is directed to maintain the status quo subsisting as at the date of this order. Each party is directed to cooperate with the Public Trustee.
35. The Deputy Registrar to serve this order together with the certificate of Confirmation of grant on the Public Trustee within 7 days hereof.
36. A return of service be filed accordingly .
37. The Public Trustee to appear before the Deputy Registrar to confirm receipt of the Orders.
38. The Public Trustee to take over the matter and to proceed to administer the Estate as per the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant herein within 6 months of service of the order and to file the requisite report.
39. The Matter be mentioned before the Deputy Registrar in 7 days hereof for compliance with this court’s directions.
40. Orders accordingly
Dated, signed and delivered via CTS on 14th November 2025
Mumbua T. Matheka
Judge
Court Assistant - Chrispol
'